That was an incredible Glastonbury I played at. Senser, My Bloody Valentine, Lush and Curve all had female lead singers. Still unsurpassed, maybe. Watching these guys was a big highlight. John Peel got me into them.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Levi raises the crucial question. How the heck do I even begin to think that something as seemingly relationist and process oriented as Buddhism could be amenable to OOO? Adrian Ivakhiv chimes in very helpfully on this issue in the comments section of Levi's post.

This requires serious work on my part. But for now...it's true that the Theravadins developed a theory of interdependence they called pratityasamutpada.

In this view Buddha gives a teaching that says "This is like this, therefore that is like that." So even on this level there is a "this" distinct from a "that." It reminds me a little of some things Graham Harman says about tool-being constituting a vast horizonless "world."

Then the Mahayana crew showed up with their teachings on emptiness. They have some interesting arguments about this precise area. One of them is known as "the tiny vajra" because it's so cute and small and devastating. One aspect of the tiny vajra's fourfold (!) argument is that if things are indeed reducible to other things, nothing would exist, which is absurd on the face of it.

The examples include a seed and its sprout, and (shout out to Al-Ghazali fans) a candle and its flame.

Sounds like a part of OOO to me...but there's more...stay tuned! Clue: I translate "empty" as "withdrawn."

Along with OOO, Aristotle was a major (re)discovery of the summer. So I'm very glad that Levi Bryant has an excellent post up on his weirdness. I couldn't agree more. I actually found Aristotle's examples—paleness and being educated show up a lot—laugh-out-loud funny on more than one occasion. I see Levi matches Aristotle in this respect—very nicely done.

Graham Harman has a corresponding post up about the trouble with reading Aristotle as an authoritarian who likes putting things in rigid boxes. I couldn't agree more with this too. I have heard more than one Derrida-inclined thinker repeating this and felt so strongly about it that I decided to talk against it in my history of criticism undergrad class yesterday. Funny synchronicity.

For me Aristotle seems to exude a relish for actually existing THINGS. He very skilfully tugs your mind away from wanting to find some material substrate that underpins them all or some transcendental Idea or other umbrella under which they all fit (Graham's undermining and overmining). His critique of matter in general is totally riveting. I rather like the punchy demotic of the new Penguin edition of the Metaphysics.

So much so that Aristotle will provide the architecture for my talk on Levi's panel at RMMLA. Title: “We Aren't the World.” I'll be talking about global warming as an Aristotelian substance.

Do yourself a favor: read the Categories, the Physics and the Metaphysics.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Adrian Ivakhiv, whose blog I admire very much, just posted a very nice comment on this one's new look. I'm happy with it. It points away from Earth, a paradox I like. There is for sure something extraterrestrial and un-worldly about things, as Harman argues in Tool-Being. The white text background means things show up on a phone, in the absence of Wordpress's elegant mobile solution.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Just listening to my friends' Shannon and Jeff's music, Pteranodon. It's really really extraordinary. Speculative realist music evoking pre-human times and spaces: one piece is called “Ancient Air Space.” You can easily find some on iTunes.

Music that is heavy with wonderment, melancholy, evolutionary time—it seems static yet it oozes on. The time of the arche-fossil. Jaw dropping.

Just listening to my friends' Shannon and Jeff's music, Pteranodon. It's really really extraordinary. Speculative music evoking pre-human times and spaces: one piece is called “Ancient Air Space.” You can easily find some on iTunes.

I'm teaching rhetoric as a graduate theory class this quarter and would really appreciate any advice anyone has to give me, so feel free to comment on my choices, topics and so on. As you can see the conclusion will be OOO, which I find very exciting. Throughout we're going to keep testing to see how far we can bend things away from human reference.

My aim isn't to persuade people to become Buddhists so much as it is to show

a) a way to think OOO that may not have occurred to people yet;b) to show the flexibility and scope of OOO; andc) to raise some questions about that whole Marxism–Christianity axis that seems to have assembled itself.d) provide an alternative to said axis.

Alistair Rider, an art historian whose work I'm enjoying discovering at present, sent me a card from St. Andrew's University in Scotland. It's a piece by Richard Long. I like it so much I decided to show it here. You can find it here. Long's site is good too.

Long's A Line Made by Walking was the very first environmental piece I'd ever really seen. I saw it when I was about twelve and it made a very striking impression. I always think of it when I think of certain texts by Heidegger. I remember thinking something about how empty and open the image was, and something like “Weird—it's in a field, the field became part of it, this is just the photo.”

Thursday, September 23, 2010

The Tibetan Kagyü, Nyingma and Shakya lineages (at least), along with Japanese Zen and many other forms of Buddhism, have developed an approach to studying the mind that reminds me of Ian Bogost's concept of “carpentry”—sort of hands on philosophy (it takes up a whole chapter his excellent forthcoming Alien Phenomenology, which is about 20% of the book). Learning things by making things.

As Heidegger argues it's simply not the case that praxis is untheoretical, and theorizing is impractical. Sometimes you can only really find out about something by using it.

Instead of studying the mind (inevitably as an object “over there,” present-at-hand in Heidegger's terms, laden with the baggage of “common sense” prejudices), these traditions study the mind by doing something with it, by using it to meditate.

The idea that meditation is useless navel-gazing is an absurd mistake.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Buddhism has developed thousands of techniques to enable a very important tool—your mind—to look at itself. This looking can be done in all kinds of ways, from studying and analyzing through direct experience.

What happens when your mind looks directly at your mind?

Clue: not infinite self-reference, thinking about thinking about thinking ... This sort of hall-of-mirrors thing would be mere presence-at-hand multiplied, i.e. just stereotyped pictures of your mind in your mind, NOT your mind as such. (“Presence-at-hand” is Heidegger's phrase.)

There is a perfectly good OOO explanation for this. Which as far as I'm concerned puts OOO way up there—many philosophers have tried and failed to wrap their heads around Buddhism, Heidegger included...

The Kagyü lineage emphasizes practice rather than study—of course they go together but the point is to meditate, meditate, meditate. Here's Orgyen Trinley Dorje, the Karmapa, the head of the lineage, talking about ecology:

Discussing the tremendous kindness of others, the Gyalwang Karmapa extended the previous days’ presentation to include all the kindness we receive from the natural environment as well. His Holiness pointed out that every single breath we inhale is the product of countless anterior causes and conditions coming together. We are the beneficiaries not just of a single lungful of the oxygen that is essential to our survival, but of a continual supply throughout our lives. The Gyalwang Karmapa then went on to relate a personal experience he had while circumambulating Gyuto some time back, in which he felt the enormity of all that nature is offering us at all times, and was filled with a sense of wonder at this fact, and with wellbeing and happiness. Often, the Gyalwang Karmapa commented, we focus on all our personal goals and projects, and on what we have failed to accomplish with our own efforts, rather than opening our perspective to the tremendous richness and goodness that nature is offering us at all times, with no effort whatsoever. Maintaining an awareness of this ever-available goodness could bring far greater contentment and joy to our lives.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The Karmapa is to the Kagyu sect of Tibetan Buddhism what the Dalai Lama is to the Gelugpas. He's in his twenties. Here's an extract of his recent teachings.

Continuing the theme introduced yesterday of human cruelty to animals, His Holiness commented that because animals cannot express their feelings in human speech, somehow we feel entitled to ignore them. He then offered an imaginative exploration of what might ensue if fish, chicken or other animals whose flesh we consume unthinkingly might suddenly be endowed with the power of human speech. Surely they would hire lawyers and take us to task for our actions towards them, he said. Should we have to face them in court, what explanation could we possibly give for our treatment of them, His Holiness wondered. When required to account for our repeated killing and cruelty, the best we might be able to do is reply, “But you taste good!” or “Well, you just look like food to me!” These would obviously not hold up in court as justifiable reasons for our actions, the Gyalwang Karmapa wryly pointed out. Yet humanity’s acts of cruelty towards one another, up to and including genocide, develops from precisely this habitual willingness to enact our selfish and aggressive impulses, and ignore the suffering of others in the process, His Holiness cautioned.

Tibetan Buddhist schools are divided as to whether 2) or 3) is the highest teaching, the definitive one. (Sorry not enough space or time to go into the full intensity here. But there is a very good book: Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness.)

Another group, which reminds me of OOO, say it's 3). Things exist, but not in an ontotheological way. Emptiness is the basis for their existing. 2) lapses into nihilism.

If we were Tibetans living in about 1800 the recent discussions of Derrida would be precisely about whether luminosity was just a way for less smart people to understand something about Buddhism (the position of (2) types) or whether it's the shizzle (3).

(2) considered (3) a regression to ontotheology. (3) considered itself a progression from nihilistic tendencies.

We'll leave the final word to Nagarjuna, the philosopher who devised the Middle Way (Madhyamika), very very close to deconstruction, commenting on (2):

“Whoever assumes my philosophy to be a belief system is incurably insane.”

In my essay "Object-Oriented Buddhism" (for Bryant, Harman and Bogost's OOO volume) I shall argue that Buddhism develops not only arguments but techniques for studying the mind as an object.

At first this mind object appears to be an object in the subject-object sense. Basic meditation slows you down enough to see that mind is at least an object in this sense.

Later on, however, mind is experienced as an object in the Harmanian sense--as a "sparkling" presence (his word) that is also totally withdrawn from access.

"But don't you need a subject to experience this object? Isn't this an infinite regress?"

If you have this worry you are simply confused by the traditional presentation of objects as "for" some subject. Buddhism argues that this is not simply a philosophical issue but is endemic to existing as such (samsara).

Saturday, September 18, 2010

My first essay on OOO is away to the copy edit stage at Qui Parle. It was a little bit of a balancing act writing it. I was asked to address ecology, and I had some thoughts of my own on OOO. So it's somewhere between a survey and an in-depth study.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Looking for inspiration in strange places.Evolution, ecosystem: interconnected in time and spaceTrying to evoke the reality of interconnectedness (ecosystem on the program) Scale (hyperobjects, decentering), habitats (and the unheimlich)Openness of art has a shot at doing thisCocteau Twins: environmental form. The timbralIrony--subject is included (Wordsworth poems). Not that the subject constructs her world or that the world lights up because of the presence of a human subject--no, in fact the absence of this is why there IS ironyThe uncanny: strange strangers. Kathleen Jamie, “The Tay Moses”Coexistence, logos (mesh), as uncannyHeidegger, human being as uncannyHorror, gothic, melancholyInspiration as happy happy face or as awakening usBreathing in, spirit(ual)Unhomely—homelessnessWeird picaresque realism--could be comedy, tragedyNot a Burkean nor a Kantian but a Longinian sublime

(NB updated address) If by chance you are near Glasgow tomorrow (September 17) I'm talking "there" by videoconference at 4.15 (UK time) in The Hetherington Building (Rm 118), behind the University of Glasgow Library.

Monday, September 13, 2010

A great new issue of the journal Polygraph (22, available on amazon), is now out, featuring me, Ben Woodard, Anthony Paul Smith, Imre Szeman, John Bellamy Foster, Kim Stanley Robinson, Kathy Rudy, Ariel Salleh, Slavoj Zizek and Michael Hardt (and many others). All this and a review of Graham Harman's Prince of Networks. The editor, Gerry Canavan, provides a useful summary here.

Graham Harman has a post on Hawking's new project. I think it's admirable for philosophy to question scientists, often and early. Off the top of my head, I see two problems with Hawking's basis for atheism:

1) Gravity has to exist in his view—the Universe is thus not strictly arising from “nothing” as he specifies. Some kind of object(s) already existed.

2) Gravity may well be epiphenomenal to the Universe. New research at Berkeley is wondering whether quantum level phenomena are a kind of picture of the very early Universe, just as deep rocks are pictures of the early ages of the Earth. Gravity, famously, doesn't square with the other three fundamental forces one finds there. If you treat gravity as emergent, you get rid of a lot of other problems such as the massive imbalance of dark matter to matter.

3) (addendum) This means that space–time is not a continuum all the way down. Strike one to Aristotle...

Beyond Sexism, Racism, Speciesism, We Are All the Same

I Wrote a Book with Björk

“A magical booklet of emails between Björk and philosopher Timothy Morton is a wild, wonderful conversation full of epiphanies and sympathies, incorporating Michael Jackson, daft goths and the vibration of subatomic particles in its dizzying leaps, alive with the thrill of falling in love with someone’s brain.” (Emily Mackay, NME)

New

AND

Timothy Morton

Timothy Morton is the author of Being Ecological (Penguin, 2018), Humankind: Solidarity with Nonhuman People (Verso, 2017), Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence (Columbia, 2016), Nothing: Three Inquiries in Buddhism (Chicago, 2015), Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World (Minnesota, 2013), Realist Magic: Objects, Ontology, Causality (Open Humanities, 2013), The Ecological Thought (Harvard, 2010), Ecology without Nature (Harvard, 2007), eight other books and 200 essays on philosophy, ecology, literature, music, art, architecture, design and food. In 2014 Morton gave the Wellek Lectures in Theory. He is Rita Shea Guffey Chair in English at Rice University. Email me

RECENTLY

Comments

You are welcome to comment by leaving your full name or a way to find your full name with one or two clicks, and/or an email address.

Translate

Search the Blog

Follow by Email

Subscribe to EwN

Twitter

Zermelo-Fraenkel Free Zone

“Outstanding.”—Slavoj Zizek, In Defense of Lost Causes

“Dark ecology has the potential to be the punk rock or experimental pop of ecological thinking.”—Kasino A4

“It isn’t [nature] itself that needs trashing — we’re doing a fine job of that already; it’s our way of thinking about it that needs to be structurally realigned ... it's an important book that, in a scant 205 pages of main text ... frames a debate that no doubt will be carried on for years to come.”—Vince Carducci, Pop Matters

“He practices what he theorizes: nothing is wasted in his argumentation.”—Emmanouil Aretoulakis, Synthesis

“Picking up where his most obvious predecessors, Gregory Bateson and Felix Guattari, left off, Morton understands mental ecology as the ground zero of ecological thinking, as that which must be redressed before anything else and above all. Morton goes beyond both his forebears, however, in repairing the rift between science and the humanities, which the Enlightenment opened up and against which Romanticism reacted. Perhaps most pleasantly surprising, given its erudition, is that in its stylistic elegance The Ecological Thought is as satisfying to read as it is necessary to ponder.”—Vince Carducci